Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 128 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 30 March, 1993

Union Of India & Ors vs Surinder S on 11 October, 2012

In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel relied upon the judgments in Somawanti v. State of Punjab (supra), Ganga Bishnu Swaika v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society (supra), Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (supra), Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (supra), State of T.N. v. L. Krishnan (supra) and Ajay Krishan Shinghal v. Union of India (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 2 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Raj. And Ors. on 23 January, 2006

This view has been taken by interpreting only para 9 of the Supreme Court decision of Gandhi Gran Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Case to the facts and circumstances of the case before the Division Bench. Consideration of paras 8 and 11 of the Supreme Court decision does not find place in the decision of the Division Bench. As stated above, the combined effect of paras 8, 9 and 11 of the Supreme Court decision seems to be otherwise. With utmost respect, it is difficult to agree with the observations made and view expressed by the Division Bench in the case of narain as regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

WA/232/2022 on 8 February, 2023

Such steps were not taken in view of the intimation received from the Indian Army that land was not required. Since there was no notice Writ Appeal No. 232 of 2022 Page 11 of 24 issued under Section 9(1) of the Act, the question of withdrawing from the acquisition under Section 48(1) did not arise. The respondents averred that due to misconception of law, the authority proceeded as per Section 48(1) of the Act and which confusion may have arisen because of the language in Paragraph-100 of the Assam Land Acquisition Manual issued by the Directorate of Requisition Acquisition and Reforms. Reliance was also placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Ors. reported in AIR 1966 SC 1593 as well as the Judgment of Gujarat High Court in C.C. Gandhi Vs. State reported in (1980) 2 GLR 132. Relying on the Judgment, it is contended that withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48(1) is called for only when notice under Section 9 of the Act is issued. However, in the present case, after issuance of the preliminary Notification under Section 4, no Officer as required under Section 4(1) was authorized to enter the specified land. It is further averred in the affidavit that the Notification dated 12.10.2011 issued under Section 48(1) of the Act may be required to be cancelled or withdrawn under Section 4(1) of the Act, which Writ Appeal No. 232 of 2022 Page 12 of 24 however, the respondents have not proceeded to in view of the present proceedings pending before this Court. The relevant paragraph of the said affidavit is extracted below:
Gauhati High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Saikia - Full Document

Anil Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 6 March, 1998

ther in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roshanara Begum v. Union of India, 1986 (1) Apex Decision 6; G. Narain Swamyreddy v. Government of Karnataka, 1991 (3)JT(SC) 12 : (AIR 1991 SC 1726); YusufBhai Noor Mohammed Nandoliya v. State of Gujarat, 1991 (4) SCC 531 :(AIR 1991 SC 2153);Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 (3) JT (SC) 194 : (AIR 1994 SC 2329); Hansraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 (4) JT (SC) 360 : (1993 AIR SCW 2923); Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjal v. State of Karnataka, 1994 (4) SCC l45; Abhey Ram v. Union of India, 1997 (5) JT (SC) 353 : (AIR 1997 SC 2564) and Venkataswamappa (supra) wherein it has been held that even if the stay order is granted in one case, it will be deemed to have been the stay in all the cases and even if only dispossession is stayed, it would extend to all further proceedings, the respondents were supposed to keep their hands off after the grant of the said interim order, but in the instant cases, the actual proceedings, i.e., publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Official Gazette and all other subsequent publications including declaration under Section 6 took place after the date of grant of interim order. Thus, the respondents cannot be permitted to plead that they could not complete the proceedings and make declaration under Section 6 within one year because of the interim stay. The respondents themselves have chosen to ignore the order passed by this Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Prabodhbhai C. Dave vs State Of Gujarat on 10 December, 1998

We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact, prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the Court has not restricted the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters were disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendolia v. State of Gujarat, Hasraj H. Jain vs. State of Maharashtra, Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka, Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka and Roshnara Begum v. Union of India. The words 'stay of the action or proceeding' have been widely interpreted by this Court to mean that any type of the orders passed by this Court would be an inhibitive action on the part of the authorities to proceed further. When the action of conducting an enquiry under Section 5A was put in issue and the declaration under Section 6 was questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry under Section 5A was properly conducted and the declaration published under Section 6 was valid, it would not be open to the officers to proceed further into the matter. As a consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf. We are not concerned with the correctness of the earlier direction with regard to Section 5A enquiry and consideration of objections as it was not challenged by the respondent Union. We express no opinion on its correctness, though it is open to doubt."
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Jaisingh Rajput And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 30 November, 1995

18. The contention that the acquisition of the land so acquired for the purpose of providing housing accommodation which is also object of the Societies and members of the societies are also low paid employees; judging the comparative utility of public purpose, the acquisition be quashed, can also no I be gone into by this Court. See the decision in Gandhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1994 SC 2329.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Malladi Krishna Mohan (Died) By Lrs. vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 12 August, 2003

................The question that arises for consideration is whether (he stay obtained by some of the persons who prohibited the respondents from publication of the declaration under Section 6 would equally be extendible to the cases relating to the appellants. We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact, prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the Court, has not restricted the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters were disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, , Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, , Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka , Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, , G. Narayanaswamy Ready v. Government of Karnataka, , and Roshnara Begum N. Union of India, (1986) 1 Apex Dec 6. The words "stay of the action or proceeding" have been widely interpreted by this Court and mean that any type of the orders passed by this Court would be an inhibitive action on the part of the authorities to proceed further. When the action of conducting an enquiry under Section 5-A was put in issue and the declaration under Section 6 was questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry under Section 5-A was properly conducted and the declaration published under Section 6 was valid, it would not be open to the officers to proceed further into the matter. As a consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baldev Singh Dhillon And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 September, 1996

153. The Supreme Court (J.S.Verma, N.P.Singh and B.N. Kirpal, JJ) in Pratap and Anr. State of Raj asthan and Ors. dealt with some appeals from Rajasthan, relating to acquisition of land. The Supreme Court relied upon its earlier pronouncements in Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan , wherein it had stated that "the State Government, in any of its departments, may decide to develop the urban area under the Act and in that case it would not be necessary for the Government to have a scheme framed under Chapter V of the Act....... It is thus clear that the State Government has the power to acquire land either for the execution of the schemes framed by the Trust under Chapter V of the Act or for any other public purpose under the Act".
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 20 - J B Goel - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next